ArticleDrug safety2010
Development safety update reports and proposals for effective and efficient risk communication.
Article in Drug safety, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacoepidemiology in Japan: medical databases and research achievements.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2015Article
- Using resources for scientific-driven pharmacovigilance: from many product safety documents to one product safety master file.Drug safety · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The periodic safety reporting to regulatory authorities is globally harmonized for postmarketing medicinal products by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, and is being extended for investigational drugs. To facilitate effective safety risk communication regarding investigational drugs, and to reduce duplicate periodic reporting to the US and EU by sponsors during development programmes, standardized Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs) are to be implemented in the near future. In this current opinion article, after extensively reviewing the relevant report from the CIOMS VII Working Group and the ICH draft guideline regarding DSURs, we discuss an effective and efficient approach to its application. To ensure effective risk communication, we recommend that DSURs be made available to all the ethics committees and participating investigators around the world for the purpose of continuing review during ongoing clinical trials. Furthermore, in order to maintain the consistency and integrity of safety information throughout the life-cycle of a drug, we believe it would be substantially more prudent and efficient to start a single, integrated, life-cycle periodic safety report covering both development and postmarketing, as proposed by the CIOMS VII Working Group, rather than maintain separate DSURs and Periodic Safety Update Reports, which can overlap considerably in content. To this end, we believe that the international regulatory community should undertake the new initiative for integrated periodic reporting immediately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20397736What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.